Legal Transfers and National Traditions: Patterns of Modernization of the Public Administration in Polish Lands At the Turn of the 18th and 19th Century Michał Gałędek Keywords: public administration – Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – Duchy of Warsaw – Kingdom of Poland – legal transfers Abstract: The turn of the 18th and 19th century was a period of dynamic changes within the public administration of Poland. They resulted from political reconstruction and following establishment of various forms of state (after the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Duchy of Warsaw was created and later a Kingdom of Poland) together with changing views on the shape of administration among Polish elites. These reasons enable to perceive Poland as a historical laboratory, an interesting case study on the circulation of legal models which was a dynamic phenomenon in the scope of administrative law and others. The unique environment of a very dynamic transformation from anachronic forms of state and law at the turn of 18th and 19th century can serve as an exceptional example of Great Narrative about the legal transfers. It has to be noted, however, that the previous solutions were not deprived of original elements, adapted to the ideas of the Enlightenment, liberalism and constitutionalism. West European ideas (mainly French) and particular legal solutions were a trigger for Polish development, though creatively adapted with the use of native legal culture and state tradition. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the sources which the authors of the Polish administrative system drew on starting from late 18th century. The paper shows that in special political circumstances, during which the political elites are under a great modernization pressure both because of the intellectual influences and threat for the state welfare. They become prone to quickly change their convictions and to conduct thorough structural reforms, at the same time focusing on the effectiveness of their solutions without abandoning the elements of their own tradition. On the other hand that period was conducive to comprehensive analyses of law and governance theories, which at that time were developing in Europe and with time took their classical shape, forming a certain canon used in contemporary models of administrative systems. Firstly, the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795 (a state possessing a number of particular administrative and legal institutions) in the period of comprehensive governance reforms (which consisted in adapting Polish traditions to the requirements of a modern state) 1, secondly, the extending of solutions used by the partitioning powers, particularly Prussia, which were in place until 1806, onto the Polish territories (those solutions were then creatively used in later political systems), thirdly, the foundation of the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 (which borrowed a number of institutions typical of Napoleon’s France)2 and finally the birth of the Kingdom of Poland (1815) under the rule of Alexander I, the Emperor of Russia3 – all those factors informed the dynamically changing ideas about what principles an administrative system should be built on, as harbored by the Polish elites. Discussions held on the eve of the creation of the Kingdom of Poland and in the first years of its existence were the central part of the debate and are the main focus of research presented in this paper. The Polish elites at that time wielded significant influence on the development of the Kingdom's administrative system and were in a position to build on experience from different governance models, which had previously been in place in the Polish territories. Based on the matters it dealt with, we can discern two main lines of development of the Polish 1 The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was a dualistic state of Poland and Lithuania ruled by a common monarch. It was one of the largest and one of the most populous countries of 16th and 17th century Europe. It was established at the Union of Lublin in 1569 and disappeared as an independent state in 1795. See e.g.: Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), vol. 1 (The Origins to 1795), pp. 115- 546; Józef Gierowski, The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the XVIIIth Century : From Anarchy to Well- Organised State (Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1996; Jean Fabre, Stanislas-Auguste Poniatowski et L'Europe des lumieres (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1952). 2 The Duchy of Warsaw was a Polish state established by Napoleon I in 1807 from the Polish lands ceded by the Kingdom of Prussia under the terms of the Treaties of Tilsit. The Duchy was held in personal union by one of Napoleon's allies - King Frederick Augustus I of Saxony. Following Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia, the Duchy was occupied by Prussian and Russian troops until 1815, when it was formally partitioned between the two countries at the Congress of Vienna. See e.g.: Norman Davies, God's Playground, vol. 2, pp. 295-305; Piotr Wandycz, The Lands of Partitioned Poland (Seattle-London: University of Washington Press, 1974), pp 43-64. 3 The Kingdom of Poland created in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna, was a personal union of the Russian parcel of Poland with the Russian Empire. It was gradually politically integrated into Russia over the course of the 19th century, made an official part of the Russian Empire in 1867, and finally replaced during the Great War by the Central Powers in 1915 with the theoretically existing Regency Kingdom of Poland. Though officially the Kingdom of Poland was a state with considerable political autonomy guaranteed by a liberal constitution, its rulers, the Russian Emperors, generally disregarded any restrictions on their power. Thus effectively it was little more than a puppet state of the Russian Empire. The autonomy was severely curtailed following uprisings in 1830–31. In effect from the start, Polish autonomy remained little more than fiction. Norman Davies, God's Playground, vol. 2, pp. 306-324; Wandycz, The Lands, pp. 65-91. modern administrative thought. The first involved considerations concerning the administrative system; the second – analyses of the importance of state and state administration in the shaping of social and economic relations. This presentation will not deal with the role and responsibilities of administration. One should, nevertheless, point out that in this area the Polish administrative thought was in practice under significant influence of the German cameralism and the police science (Policewissenschaft)4, which became gradually imbued with elements of physiocracy and (but mainly in theory) classical liberalism5. The authors of the first modern administrative reforms in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had been strongly influenced by cameralism, which assumed an increased role of the state in creation of conditions for economic development6. First ministries of modern Poland, established in 1764, in form of Commission of Crown Treasury were given the tasks not only of fiscal and budgetary nature, but also those of a wider economic context7. The Ministry of Interior in the Duchy of Warsaw and the Kingdom of Poland played a similar role and finally the police science and cameralistic assumptions of active state policy in the field of economy were executed in the operation of Government Commission of Revenue and Treasury. The latter was governed by Franciszek Ksawery Drucki-Lubecki between 1821 and 18308. The prevalent spirit of the time was a conviction that Poland was a backward country and it was necessary for the state and its administration – as “the whole of public services, assigned to participate in the execution of the thought of the Government”9 directly responsible for groundbreaking modernizing changes – to actively and comprehensively implement its policies. The usual focus of studies was proper functioning of the administration as the fundamental instrument of change10. The role of administration was emphasized, which was why compared to previous periods there was a dramatic rise in interest in all matters related to its organization and operating mechanisms. Theoretical and practical achievements of Western Europe became the 4 See e.g. Marc Raeff, The Well Ordered Police State. Social and Institutional Change Through Law in the Germanies and Russia. 1600-1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983); David F. Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination: The German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997); Andre Wakefield (2009), The Disordered Police State: German Cameralism as Science and Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997). 5 See e.g. Henry William Spiegel The Growth of Economic Thought. Revised and Expanded Edition, (Durham: Duke University Press, 1983); Alexander Gerschekron, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, a Book of Essays (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1962). 6 Jerzy Malec, Polska myśl administracyjna XVIII wieku [Polish Administrative Thought in 18th Century] (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Akademia Frycza Modrzewskiego, 2008), pp. 102-107. 7 Grażyna Bałtruszajtys, „Komisja Skarbu Koronnego jako organ kolegialny (1764 – 1794)” [Commission of Crown Treasury as the Collegial Organ (1764 - 1798], Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 1 (1988), pp. 103-112; 8 Stanisław Smolka, Polityka Lubeckiego przed powstaniem listopadowym [Politics of Lubecki before the November Uprising], (Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności, 1907), vol. 1, pp.